Beer and Tobacco are Good For You?


Totally agree. I had to sit next to people who thought it was cool to blow e-cig smoke in my face.

Not cool, guys. Not cool.


Regrettably people my age (late teens, early 20’s) seem to be the worst offenders. Restaurants, theatres, bus stops… they have an arsenal of excuses for why you have no right to be offended and they’re not breaking the law anyway which absolves them of any need for considerate behavior. Just because the vapor is chemically harmless doesn’t mean you aren’t being a BIT distracting by filling the area with plumes of smoke.


I’d like to see that study!

WHO calls for indoor ban on vaping.


Never had to be around people that bad, but (I don’t know if it is that it is a colder “smoke” or the “sugars” in it make it heavier) e-cig smoke seems to just hang in the air instead of floating away or dispersing like actual smoke.


It’s not a completely bad idea, but it comes with two problems. The first is that vapor emissions are measured in ppb, which is interesting when you consider the measure of emissions from a smokers clothing alone are measured in ppm. If protecting public health is the motivation, cigarette smokers would ideally need to change clothes and shower between smoke breaks.

The second problem is with vapor shops themselves. One of the highlights of the industry is customers being able to “test drive” various flavors and products in-store. A nation-wide or even state-wide ban would likely be indiscriminate and impede business.

Building and business owners today are well within their rights to establish their own bans and many have done so, with signs and warnings. This seems like a more practical solution.

I don’t vape and I don’t feel compelled to defend others’ right to do so in public places. I just don’t think the WHO is making the best legislative suggestion here.


On the subject of vaping, I’ll say that I’ve quit smoking for over 2 years (a 20 year habit) because of it. People have been demonizing it for a long time but none of the criticisms have held up. After nearly a decade of use there is still no justifiable cause for concern over the health of vapers, even less for those exposed to second hand vapor. If it isn’t a public hazard, the government can take their legislation and shove it.

That said, it is still rude to chuck clouds into faces. I make considerable effort to avoid fogging people out, but it is actually rather difficult. In order to maintain that same chest satisfaction that you get from smoking, you need heavy clouds of vapor. My own device makes my truck look like Three Mile Island, so when I vape around other people they often get hit unintentionally with a low-lying fog.

Who would have thought that puffing harmless, giant plumes of fragrant vapor from a device that looks like it came from Batman’s utility belt is actually more alienating than just smoking.


Makes me think of a joke I read over 15 years, which I will do a great disservice by completely mangling below…

Person A: "So, how is ‘the patch’ working for you?"
Person B: "Great, I’ve been smoke free for months."
Person A: "And the patch?"
Person B: “I am up to 6 a day.”


Swanson vitamins sells 2 different extracts of hops, one called Perluxan, which has the best properties of beer, and none of the bad. I forget the other product’s name. The hops in beer is estrogenic, and in large amounts over time–and many indulge themselves with LARGE amounts of beer–unhealthy. I take Perluxan and it definitely works to relieve systemic pain (inflammation), not as well as aspirin granted, but without eating up your stomach lining. Please note, I am not hyping a particular product.


The hops in beer is estrogenic

I believe this is partly an explanation for why excessive male beer drinkers tend to develop “man boobs” over time.


Could be, dunno. But boobs or not, alcohol makes you weak.


Assuming you are not joking, that is not really true. There are many studies that point to moderate alcohol consumption being healthy.


Mm hm. I’ve heard this plenty before, and it just isn’t true. It’s controversial at best, and misleading at worst. There are just as many studies that point to moderate alcohol consumption having zero affect on long term health.

Here’s more recently published research (within the last year) covering 53,000 people:

Beneficial associations between low intensity alcohol consumption and all cause mortality may in part be attributable to inappropriate selection of a referent group and weak adjustment for confounders. Compared with never drinkers, age stratified analyses suggest that beneficial dose-response relations between alcohol consumption and all cause mortality may be largely specific to women drinkers aged 65 years or more, with little to no protection present in other age-sex groups. These protective associations may, however, be explained by the effect of selection biases across age-sex strata.

Here’s another recent study (within the last 3 years) suggesting that there is no safe threshold for alcohol consumption and the elevated risk of cancer.

I prefer studies to articles. If you can find me any, I’ll have a look. For now, its best not to talk so “matter of factly” about these things, as the verdict isn’t quite out yet. Its good to ask one’s self if they’re simply trying to justify the frivolous spending on intoxicants as “self-medication”, which is a slippery slope.

Also, hoppy beers are estrogenic and drinking them excessively will give you man boobs, which has nothing to do with either of your articles. So I’m not really sure what you were trying to prove me wrong about there.


To be honest, there are almost too many studies to count that show health benefits. Note: I am not saying large amounts of alcohol consumption, only low to moderate consumption. Here are a few of the many showing alcohol consumptive benefits:

More than 100 prospective studies show an inverse association between moderate drinking and risk of heart attack, ischemic (clot-caused) stroke, peripheral vascular disease, sudden cardiac death, and death from all cardiovascular causes.


Yes, there are quite a lot of studies on both the benefits and risks of moderate drinking. Moderate drinkers tend to occupy higher strata of socioeconomic levels, and consequently have better health overall.


I just provided you with the studies you requested, nothing more. To be honest, I was just responding to e2johnw above about alcohol making people weak. There is plenty of evidence for benefits from low-to-moderate alcohol consumption.

To be fair, your point about cancer is well taken. In my research, it is one of the downsides. There are just more positives than negatives so far in the research I have conducted. Obviously, everyone is free to make their own judgments.

Also, your point about causation-vs-correlation is well taken and always good to keep in mind. A good study will try to correct for as many factors as possible, but it is indeed hard to always do so. Just from what I have observed, consumption of alcohol seems to be fairly prevalent among all steps of the socio-economic ladder, but I have no data one way or the other on it.

Also, I would like to reiterate, I in no way advocate for high levels of alcohol consumption.


Almost all of these studies are not randomized. Many of them cite conflicting studies in their own conclusions. Many of them include phrases such as “evidence is weak” and “observations had many limitations”. Almost every conclusion says the study is not meant to be used as substantial evidence, nor should the data be generally applicable given the controls. Researchers stated in many of these studies that the risks of any alcohol consumption need to be weighed against any potential benefits.

I think it is more likely that you are looking for positives, rather than there actually being more positives.

I’m not going to go compile a list, but I assure you you can find just as many negative studies on the impacts of moderate to low consumption. Given that alone, as I said before, this topic should be seen as controversial at best and misleading at worst. The researchers themselves are well aware of this.

Heavy consumption is more prominent among lower socioeconomic strata, while moderation control is seen more in higher strata. One of the studies you cited even listed this as a possible explanation for large sample sizes. In any case, people who have moderation control are more likely to have better lifestyle choices - they won’t indulge in lazyness or poor dietary habits for example.

The most compelling study there was the genetics-based study, and even here the evidence is weak.

Everyone is free to make their own consumption choices, but judgements are better left to research scientists rather than the tabloid journalists of Wired and PSmag.


So, I guess this probably isn’t the healthiest option…


LOL the top comment: “This is a real man”


dood i just drank an whole 12 pack and i could beet anyone hear in an arm wrestle